Q1: An action will usually contain all the sub-actions within it, so 3-actions & two free hands is all you need, with the clarification that you have to have the item to be poisoned in one of your hands.
If your poison is stowed, there would be an argument for making it available by retrieving it first, but generally if meant to be used in combat, an item should be accessible by default.
Some poisons have onset times, most do not. If unlisted, it's immediate and the target makes a save, taking the first result if they fail.
Q2: That's a great question whether the poison is factored into their level for every shot or only for the amount of times listed in their equipment line (due perhaps to equipment money). Except if it's on their weapon already, it shouldn't also be found simply as poison. And wouldn't there be spare poisoned arrows?
I figured w/ Drow, they used up their poison when they struck, but with a quiver...who knows?
But no, they shouldn't be applying it in combat unless explicitly called out since that's really, really bad tactics. And also no, creatures with natural poison attacks aren't poisoning their weapons so aren't part of these mechanics.
And same thing about drawing & applying being part of the same action for Rogues taking that feat. If not stowed, which might occur if hiding it from authorities I suppose. So an Alchemist that wants to poison in combat pretty much has to pre-poison (likely several weapons) or MCD Rogue to get to that feat.
Q3: Actions for whom? A lot of NPCs have pre-poisoned weapons ready for combat, so they're aren't using any actions at all. Those Guardians aren't poisoning their weapons in combat.
Most PCs should pre-poison too, except they're planning to fight a lot more enemies and don't necessarily want to waste it on easy targets.
PCs can already pre-poison, so "do the same..." doesn't work here. Getting poisoning from 3 actions to 1 is a huge bonus already, though poisoners are struggling in other ways.
A major part of the issue is whatever an Alchemist can poison to gain a competitive edge, can also be given to a warrior who already has an edge (which would make an Alchemist a "must have" to exploit that bonus). So there needs to be a poisoner Alchemist track where they can make poison that only they can use at peak performance, much like how they can pass out bombs, but it's Alchemists that have all the abilities to make bombs function much better or with more versatility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I've stated is based on my opinion & my common sense already. Poison barely works, which is better than other editions where it hardly worked (unless you go all the way back to save or die). Yay? Yet if I wanted to make a poison-themed PC, I'd likely go with Green Dragon Barbarian Instinct.
The answers were written in the order of your post. I think...
Who says PCs can't pre-apply poison to a dozen arrows?
(Assuming the poison doesn't expire that is.)
Such a counter-intuitive limitation would have to be specifically cited since 1. That's how poison arrows work (in reality & fantasy) and 2. There are examples of pre-poisoned ammo in the books so ammo by RAW has been poisoned individually. Therefore ammo can be poisoned.
Paizo has quite explicitly said not to approach PF2 legalistically. The rules attempt to be rigorous, but devs expect us to interpret the rules as adults, not robots. Archers put poison on arrows, not on bows. This is so clear you had to reinterpret poisoning the bow to "the arrow you're about to shoot from the bow", which isn't the same. So you have such an arrow sitting alongside its chums in your quiver, thereby why can't they be poisoned too? Or why can't you the archer pull a different arrow? Because the bow has poison slathered on it? Wuh?
(Also by that thinking, if you miss, the next arrows keep having poison until you hit or critically miss. A bit absurd.)
Perhaps there is a point mechanically to make for game balance of ranged vs. melee.
I disagree, though yes, it should make one wary.
There have already been tricks made to bypass that, such as via Doubling Rings and Quick Draw w/ an arsenal of poisoned melee weapons. I think the gold cost of the poison is what balances the issue, not the accessibility in later attacks. So Alchemists, much like they get to use bombs too expensive for others to bother with, also can make free poisons too expensive to purchase elsewhere. And just like with the bombs, they can pass them out to their buddies who might very well use them better.
Citation needed that poisoned arrows aren't RAI or that melee & ranged are supposed to balance re: poison usage.
Ranged attackers lose doses of poison more often.
A person who misses with a ranged attack wastes their dose of poison. A person who misses (non-critically) with a melee attack still has their poison. If poison were limitless, that wouldn't make a difference, favoring the ranged attacker, but it's a valuable resource so IMO it does make a difference.
I understand you think pre-poisoned arrows are unsustainable. Oh well.
But if these guys needed to quick-poison their arrows, they'd have an ability spelling that out, right? So most likely they don't, and that's most likely due to having pre-poisoned arrows because yes, it would be too severe to make them use 1/2 their turns poisoning. Tactically, they wouldn't bother.
I think the devs are avoiding making statements, likely due to orders from above. They've made few official corrections.
I can see absolutely no issue with pre-poisoning arrows (or multiple melee weapons for that matter, the 5th-level pregen Merisiel e.g. has 9 daggers on her which I'd have no issue with her pre-applying poison to some or even all of them).
According to RAW (CRP p.550) poison is applied to "a weapon or another item", so that clearly includes ammo.
There is no maximum duration given for how long it remains effective (and I don't see a reason why there should be, age-old traps still remaining poisonous is not an uncommon thing in fantasy in general)
Many NPCs have pre-poisoned ammo. While the Ekujae hunters (which you're not expected to fight, really) don't have their arrows listed as pre-poisoned and thus should not automatically apply poison damage unless they took the time to apply the poison first, others do (e.g. Cult of Cinders p.50, or Tomorrow Must Burn p.41).
NB applying poison to a bow would technically be possible but could only ever be effective if you used the bow as an improvised melee or thrown weapon. There is no reason why it should transfer poison to its arrows.
The action economy of applying poison has already been discussed. While I have a small issue with that (as I could easily see a poison being applied by having a jar of it standing on the ground or on a table and your arrows or daggers would just be dipped in - something I would consider to take only 1 action), I'm happy to concede that the game cannot model all real-world possibilities perfectly adequately and some concessions need to be made to allow for game balance.
1. That's how poison arrows work (in reality & fantasy)
In fantasy only. Poisoned weapons have very rarely been used in reality, and only to kill after combat: The most potent poisons on earth kill in dozens of minutes.
The issue with RAI is that you can't bring it around a PFS table. So, RAW, you have to apply an injury poison to a weapon. Around a PFS table, any other use would be invalid.In terms of balance, it's very hard to tell. Both systems have their pros and cons. Still, a high level ranger with poisoned arrows seem overkill to me, considering the amount of hit per rounds (and thus poison attempts) he can make.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue with RAI is that you can't bring it around a PFS table. So, RAW, you have to apply an injury poison to a weapon. Around a PFS table, any other use would be invalid.
Could you point to where it says that PFS explicitly excludes the RAW parts in the CRB that say e.g.
"If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed" (CRB p.444, Yes, the RAW literally include using RAI instead of RAW!)
and
"As the GM, you are responsible for solving any rules disputes. Remember that keeping your game moving is more important than being 100% correct. Looking up rules at the table can slow the game down, so in many cases it’s better to make your best guess rather than scour the book for the exact rule." (CRB p.491)
and
"As Game Master, you have the final say on how the world and rules function, and how nonplayer characters act." (CRB p.483)
and others as well, I'm sure.
Every single PFS2-table I've sat at, online or offline, has recognized that PF2 is a new system and some rules as written are flawed or at least unpolished and the GM needs to sometimes make rulings along the lines above. No GM I've ever met would seriously consider the bit about injury poisons only being activated by being applied to a weapon (and not including ammo here) as anything but an oversight on the part of whoever wrote that section.
Similarly, on the occasions where NPCs use poisoned arrows/bolts that I quoted above (official PF2 content, if not PFS2-content for now), no player would seriously argue that the poison had not been activated (as it had not been applied to a weapon but rather ammo) and thus should be inactive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, let me rephrase that: "there are NPCs in published official material that use pre-poisoned ammo." Those were the two examples that came to my mind, I didn't do a thorough check to see if there were any others. However, use of poisoned weapons isn't super common and in the limited number of official PF2 adventures published, I wouldn't expect to find too many examples of it.
Still, I think even those two examples are sufficient to show that the clear intention of the rules is to allow ammo to be poisoned (and pre-poisoned) and the fact that the injury poison entry doesn't mention ammo despite these two examples to the contrary is an oversight and not a deliberate limitation.
I think the Ekujae entry is just not precise enough as it is not expected that the party will fight them. I read it as them having a number of doses available but not applied to any weapon, but should they use it, it's intended to be used on the arrows (and then add the appropriate effect to a ranged hit) rather than their daggers. But yes, it's just not made as clear as in the other examples.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. That's how poison arrows work (in reality & fantasy)In fantasy only. Poisoned weapons have very rarely been used in reality, and only to kill after combat: The most potent poisons on earth kill in dozens of minutes.
The issue with RAI is that you can't bring it around a PFS table. So, RAW, you have to apply an injury poison to a weapon. Around a PFS table, any other use would be invalid.In terms of balance, it's very hard to tell. Both systems have their pros and cons. Still, a high level ranger with poisoned arrows seem overkill to me, considering the amount of hit per rounds (and thus poison attempts) he can make.
if playing raw then you can just use javelins , daggers etc
but in my personal games ill allow poisoning arrows
Could you point to where it says that PFS explicitly excludes the RAW parts in the CRB that say e.g.
"If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed" (CRB p.444, Yes, the RAW literally include using RAI instead of RAW!)
and
"As the GM, you are responsible for solving any rules disputes. Remember that keeping your game moving is more important than being 100% correct. Looking up rules at the table can slow the game down, so in many cases it’s better to make your best guess rather than scour the book for the exact rule." (CRB p.491)
and
"As Game Master, you have the final say on how the world and rules function, and how nonplayer characters act." (CRB p.483)
Well, it says "as a GM", not as a player. A player can't play with his own house rules. So if you want to start every game by convincing the GM to use your house rules, it's fine. But you can't use them without GM approval. Which is not the case for RAW.
Well, it says "as a GM", not as a player. A player can't play with his own house rules. So if you want to start every game by convincing the GM to use your house rules, it's fine. But you can't use them without GM approval. Which is not the case for RAW.
Yes, I'm looking at this from the point of view of a GM and I was wondering if there was actually a Society rule that I had missed somehow which specifically removed certain GM-liberties for "uniformity" or whatever other nonsense.
Otherwise, I'd argue that this case of poisoning arrows is clearly RAI which supercedes the obvious oversight of not mentioning ammo in the injury poison paragraph.
Yes, as a player, trying to convince every GM to run their games according to your house rules is not likely to succeed :). However, in this case I believe such a reasonably strong case can be made using the examples I gave above that I'd probably risk to just use it that way. I wouldn't expect any normal GM to seriously object.
Actually, even with RAW, if your GM doesn't approve, you cannot use it either. If your GM rules that the RAW do not represent the RAI, then tough luck, there's really nothing you can do about it.
Actually, even with RAW, if your GM doesn't approve, you cannot use it either. If your GM rules that the RAW do not represent the RAI, then tough luck, there's really nothing you can do about it.
That's not completely true. As a PFS DM, you are supposed to follow the rules of the game.
If one of your players starts "poisoning his bow", thus following RAW, you can suggest him to use your house rule, but you can't force him to do so, as using RAW is not disrupting the game.Of course, "poisoning a bow" is a game mechanic, the character's action is to poison his arrows. It's like taking a 5-foot step underwater or using a Strike action with a bow.
Well, the rules of the game include stuff like "if you think the rules as written don't work as intended, go with what you think is the intended version instead". Essentially, the GM can basically rule whatever he wants...
But again, I'm not at all advocating in favor of sadistic GM dictators who just want to make things hard or unenjoyable for their players, I'm just trying to convey the notion (which I believe is totally supported by the rules) that a GM sometimes needs to make reasonable adjustments and that players have no "right" to "demand" that the GM needs to accept any outrageous thing they came up with during theorycrafting based on their reading of the RAW.
In my experience, this is usually not an issue, but if ever the two sides were unable to come to an agreement, the GM's opinion is right for that game per default. If there were such unbridgable differences, however, it might be a better choice for that player not to play at that table.
In practice, if a player at my table said he was poisoning his bow, I'd ask him if his intention was to have the next arrow he fired to be poisoned and if it is, just tell him to apply the poison to the arrow instead and mark one of his arrows as poisoned. Problem solved.
If, however, he for some strange reason thought his poisoned bow would now cause all arrows from the bow to inflict poison damage, I'd inform him that that was not the case. We might disagree, but ultimately, my ruling would stand.
If, however, he for some strange reason thought his poisoned bow would now cause all arrows from the bow to inflict poison damage, I'd inform him that that was not the case. We might disagree, but ultimately, my ruling would stand.
But if your player says he poisons his arrows (the in-game action tied to the rule action of poisoning his bow), then shoots a few arrows, manages to hit and asks your for a save against poison, what will you do?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The obvious answer seems to be, "have the target make the save against the DC specified by the poison". I'm not sure what else you would expect.
That is assuming the arrow that hit actually had poison applied to it. One dose of poison is enough for one attack, so if you only poisoned one arrow, the poison only works when you shoot that arrow, obviously. Again, "poisoning the bow" will not get you more than one use out of that dose of poison. I'd rule that as poisoning one arrow, not poison all arrows shot by that bow (or even all arrows in the quiver).
[edit]
Which leaves the question what happens with the arrows that missed, since poisoned melee weapons retain their poisoned status until they hit for the first time. However, since I would expect a missed arrow the get stuck in something, either the ground, or a tree, or whatever, or break if it shattered on say a steel plate, I'd probably rule against reusability.
[/edit]
If someone was trying to argue that an injury poison that has been applied to an arrow (and not technically a "weapon") is not activated and therefore does not work, because ammo is not mentioned in that paragraph I would over-rule that someone, as I've said before.
I would apply the same logic to an injury poison applied to a trap, which is also not technically a weapon according to the RAW, btw.
Other than that, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.
The argument that you can't run an official table where the poison goes on the arrow because it isn't RAW would hold more water if there was an undisputed consensus that ammunition is not a subset of weapons.
There is not.
The argument that you can't run an official table where the poison goes on the arrow because it isn't RAW would hold more water if there was an undisputed consensus that ammunition is not a subset of weapons.
There is not.
This is from the CRB, p.280, paragraph "Ammunition":
"Some entries in the ranged weapons tables are followed by an entry indicating the type of ammunition that weapon launches. The damage die is determined by the weapon, not the ammunition.""Ammunition" is obviously intended to be distinct from "weapon" in the usage in the rules, it is merely on the table for convenience. It cannot be used without a weapon to shoot it with (except as an improvised weapon, but that doesn't turn it into a weapon anymore that it does a candlestick)
But really, even aside from ammo, what about traps? Can an injury poison be applied (and be activated) on those?
The point is moot, though, since the argument "you can't run an official table where something is allowed that isn't RAW" is moot itself. According to the RAW, RAI beats RAW and the GM is the final arbiter of what the I of any RAW is.
The argument that you can't run an official table where the poison goes on the arrow because it isn't RAW would hold more water if there was an undisputed consensus that ammunition is not a subset of weapons.
There is not.
There is not a single line considering that ammunitions are weapons. Not one. Just astrological computations about their positioning in a table. With the same logic, unarmored would be an armor. And anyway, the current debate is: Can a DM apply his own house rules during a PFS game?
That is assuming the arrow that hit actually had poison applied to it. One dose of poison is enough for one attack, so if you only poisoned one arrow, the poison only works when you shoot that arrow, obviously. Again, "poisoning the bow" will not get you more than one use out of that dose of poison. I'd rule that as poisoning one arrow, not poison all arrows shot by that bow (or even all arrows in the quiver).
The player used one dose of poison and hits with the second arrow, for example, following RAW. What do you do?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The player used one dose of poison and hits with the second arrow, for example, following RAW. What do you do?
When he used the dose of poison, I had explained to him that I'd rule that as applying the poison to one arrow (and if this was the first time, I'd give him a chance to reconsider if he didn't want to do that). With every shot he makes, as long as he has both poisoned and non-poisoned arrows available, he gets to specify (when he announces the shot, before the attack roll) which type he is using for the shot (edit: or alternatively we'd agree that he uses e.g. normal arrows as the standard, unless specified otherwise before the roll /edit). If a poisoned arrow hits, poison is applied, if a non-poisoned arrow hits, no poison is applied, obviously.
If he had really intended to coat the bow itself with poison specifically, I'd probably let him do it, but only after making it very clear to him that that poison could only ever be effective if he ever pierced or slashed someone with the bow itself - so not very likely. It would not apply a poison effect onto the arrow and not affect a target hit by an arrow shot with that bow.
The only exception might be a specially made bow for that purpose,
But that would be rare and come with an extra cost attached. And would still use one dose per shot.
Being in the same table IS a very strong indicator.
It is as "astrological computations" as saying that "those aren't the rules for PF 2 just because they are in a book merely called pathfinder 2 rulebook".
The only other thing that is the table and ISN'T a weapon is specifically called so (unarmed).
And "unarmoured" IS NOT on the "Armour table".
In fact there's a whole separate "unarmoured proficiency" right above the "armour" table.
They are on the archive of Nethys. It looks like it's a difference with the rulebook.
So, as they are weapons, you can apply runes on an arrow. And apply both the bow rune and the arrow rune, because nothing states otherwise.
So, at high level, I can have a bunch of ghost touch arrows for a hundred gp each and use them when needed.
I think it's a major change to the rules, but if you think it's RAW, why not.
Btw, in chapter 11 of the CRB "Crafting & Treasure", ammunition is listed under consumables and not under weapons. Just saying...
So, at high level, I can have a bunch of ghost touch arrows for a hundred gp each and use them when needed.
You'd also have to successfully argue the point that your arrows are not only weapons but specifically melee weapons. That might be tough...
It might be better to go with the actual "Ghost arrows" from the CRB. While they are a bit more pricy at 900gp and are a level 14 item, you get to reuse them forever. Probably the better deal with much fewer discussions with your GM.
(Yes, I get you were being sarcastic)
Being in the same table IS a very strong indicator.
It is as "astrological computations" as saying that "those aren't the rules for PF 2 just because they are in a book merely called pathfinder 2 rulebook".
The only other thing that is the table and ISN'T a weapon is specifically called so (unarmed).
And "unarmoured" IS NOT on the "Armour table".
In fact there's a whole separate "unarmoured proficiency" right above the "armour" table.
They are on the archive of Nethys. It looks like it's a difference with the rulebook.
So, as they are weapons, you can apply runes on an arrow. And apply both the bow rune and the arrow rune, because nothing states otherwise.
So, at high level, I can have a bunch of ghost touch arrows for a hundred gp each and use them when needed.
I think it's a major change to the rules, but if you think it's RAW, why not.
I was poking around on AoN and found:
Ghost touch
Usage: etched onto a melee weapon
The rest get so expensive so fast for enchanting one arrow, I can't see it being very widely used. (And you need a +1 fundamental rune on there first). I also don't particularly mind the idea of paying a bundle for a one time use +1d6 Acid arrow.
As for Striking, that rune sets the damage of the weapon, not increasing it be a factor, so you wouldn't be able to stack a Striking Bow and a Striking Arrow.
I was poking around on AoN and found:
Ghost touch
Usage: etched onto a melee weaponThe rest get so expensive so fast for enchanting one arrow, I can't see it being very widely used. (And you need a +1 fundamental rune on there first). I also don't particularly mind the idea of paying a bundle for a one time use +1d6 Acid arrow.
As for Striking, that rune sets the damage of the weapon, not increasing it be a factor, so you wouldn't be able to stack a Striking Bow and a Striking Arrow.
Well, if it's ok for you to cumulate up to 6 property runes on each attack, I'm out of arguments.
The (unreasonable) argument that arrows should themselves bes weapons aside,
I'm still interested in what you think about the way I'd handle the situation with "poisoning the bow"? Because I honestly think that is absolutely reasonable and RAI, with the RAW in that paragraph really only differing due to an editoral oversight in that ammo and traps are not mentioned in addition to weapons in the injury poison paragraph. I seriously would not even consider that "house rules" at all, instead, I would apply the RAW that declares that RAI should be used in such cases instead of the RAW.
How would you have handled it differently?
Do you think archers are not intended to not be able to shoot poisoned arrows?
Do you think one dose of poison is intended to affect more than one arrow, and if so should it be applied to the bow directly?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if it's ok for you to cumulate up to 6 property runes on each attack, I'm out of arguments.I was poking around on AoN and found:
Ghost touch
Usage: etched onto a melee weaponThe rest get so expensive so fast for enchanting one arrow, I can't see it being very widely used. (And you need a +1 fundamental rune on there first). I also don't particularly mind the idea of paying a bundle for a one time use +1d6 Acid arrow.
As for Striking, that rune sets the damage of the weapon, not increasing it be a factor, so you wouldn't be able to stack a Striking Bow and a Striking Arrow.
At a minimum of 10k gold per shot, I would have very few qualms about letting it ride. Oh no, an extra 3d6 acid/cold/fire on one attack.
If they spring for the higher level runes they'd be staring down a 28k gold per shot price tag. A quarter of their level 20 wealth. For... 3d6 extra damage on one attacl, and some nasty crit effects.
Well, if it's ok for you to cumulate up to 6 property runes on each attack, I'm out of arguments.I was poking around on AoN and found:
Ghost touch
Usage: etched onto a melee weaponThe rest get so expensive so fast for enchanting one arrow, I can't see it being very widely used. (And you need a +1 fundamental rune on there first). I also don't particularly mind the idea of paying a bundle for a one time use +1d6 Acid arrow.
As for Striking, that rune sets the damage of the weapon, not increasing it be a factor, so you wouldn't be able to stack a Striking Bow and a Striking Arrow.
For the low low cost of ~9000gp or more per arrow, since you need to have a +3 potency rune to add 3 property runes, this is really not actually a big deal, as much as it is likely not intended.
Like, 8000gp is the price given to a Spellstrike IX arrow, which casts a 9th level spell on hit. The Spellstrike arrow has some restrictions that this tricked out arrow wouldn't, but the rune arrow also has a fraction of the total effect for a significantly higher cost.
|
Eh, per the OP’s questions, I would probably have the 3 action poison weapon action to include drawing out the poison, but it is unlikely to be used in combat so doesn’t really have too much bearing. For the enemies, since the NPCs and other enemies are built differently to PCs I’d say that all their attacks are poisoned and just give less poison treasure if it goes on longer (pre-poisoned or whatever you decide on).
At a minimum of 10k gold per shot, I would have very few qualms about letting it ride. Oh no, an extra 3d6 acid/cold/fire on one attack.
500 gp for 1d6, 2000 gp for 2d6. It's true that the 3d6 are expensive, but the other aren't. Anyway, for me, having more than 3 property runes on an attack is clearly a hack of the system. It's not for you, so I can't argue more :)
How would you have handled it differently?
I woudn't, I was just interested.
I had an experience in the past with a DM telling me I couldn't tumble with my weapon because it was too big for that. I was having a reach weapon, and was using tumble quite a lot when stuck in melee. The issue with house rules is that you can have a player really pissed off because you forbid him to properly use his character. Anyway, as there is no consensus on poisoning arrows, there's a need for a FAQ or errata. Because you can clearly build a character based around poison and projectile weapons, it would be very sad to discover half way that the proper rules have a negative impact on your playstyle.
Ammo is listed as consumables (and not as weapons) in the Crafting and Treasure chapter. And the description in the ammunition entry in the Equipment chapter makes it quite clear that they are still seperate from weapons despite being on that list (multiple times, as there is an entry for each weapon shooting that particular projectile) for convenience's sake. I'm pretty sure we've been through this, maybe read the thread above :).
Still, I believe the general agreement is that arrows (and not the bow itself) are the object intended to be poisoned. The paragraph on how injury poisons are applied in the Crafting and Treasure Chapter however neglects to mention either ammo or traps, which I believe is merely an oversight and should be errata'd. Officially published adventures have injury poisons applied both via ammo and via traps.
I have and would again totally argue that ammunition is not a weapon (and if you think of sling stones or even irl bullets, I think it's blatantly obvious that they are not weapons themselves but rather something to be fired from a weapon).
And as I've argued above, the rules do support my view, even if they may be ambiguous enough to support multiple views :).
It doesn't really matter though, as I think we can all agree that the intended rules are that ammo and traps should be able to be poisoned.
Where exactly the exact text of the rules needs to be modified to better reflect this, I honestly don't care.
Alright, so we have the common ground of agreeing ammunition should be poisonable. So let me ask you this: What do you gain by arguing ammunition aren't weapons. What do you lose by agreeing that they are?
I agree that sling bullets can't be poisoned, but not because they're ammunition. They're Bludgeoning, and so can't apply Injury poison, and Contact poison would be too problematic.
You are mixing 2 non-correlated things. Ammunitions can be poisoned even if they are not weapons. There is a rule, which uses some mechanics with some words and then there's the in-game translation.
Like when you say that you Strike with your bow. The rules use the word strike, but in-game you shoot.It's the same here. When you poison a bow, you obviously poison arrows.
Considering arrows as weapon only modifies the application of the rule, not the in-game actions and description.
Alright, so we have the common ground of agreeing ammunition should be poisonable. So let me ask you this: What do you gain by arguing ammunition aren't weapons. What do you lose by agreeing that they are?
Treating ammo as weapons requires you to make numerous exceptions in the rules for these "weapons", that aren't really weapons. That's a whole lot of special pleading.
If you have just an arrow, no bow, is that a weapon? How do you attack with it? It's listed under ranged weapons, so would you use a ranged attack roll? How much damage does it do? None is listed. Should weapon runes be able to be inscribed on it? I'd say no, but your milage may vary, but if you classify them as weapons you either have to let runes be used on them or make another exception.These are weapons that have none of the traits all the other weapons have. They cannot be used to attack by themselves an any better than any other improvised weapon can, but only used to "deliver" the force of the attack of the actual weapon.
It's like arguing the rocks slung with a catapult are weapons. They are projectiles used with a weapon, but they are not weapons themselves. Or would you see those as weapons, too?
I agree that sling bullets can't be poisoned, but not because they're ammunition. They're Bludgeoning, and so can't apply Injury poison, and Contact poison would be too problematic.
The very much misrepresents what I said, I only mentioned sling bullets because they can easier be imagined as as pretty much pebbles, instead of the somewhat pointier arrows and I thought that might help you see them as not weapons. They could be poisoned just like arrows, but yes, you'd need another type of poison and it would be less practical.